-
AO has merely acted on the basis of surmises and conjuncture in estimating 20% of the total receipt as unexplained cash credit. Therefore, the addition made upon the basis of guess work cannot be sustained.
Nitta Jatiya (Alias Nita Jatia) Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29482 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Unless the assessee falls within Sec. 2(15), excluding first proviso, the assessee would not be entitled to the benefit of exemption from tax and if in case assessee falls within first proviso the benefit of registration which flow from Section 12A will not be available.
Gujarat Maritime Board Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29481 (SC) · Section 2(15)
-
Even trial production machineries kept ready for use, were considered to be used for purpose of business to qualify for depreciation.
LAKSHMI GENERAL FINANCE LTD. Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29480 (HC-MADRAS)
-
When the order of the Pr.CIT under Sec. 263 had been quashed by the Tribunal, therefore, the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill made by the A.O by relying on the order passed by his predecessor under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 263 cannot survive on a standalone basis and was liable to be vacated.
FEDEX EXPRESS Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29479 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT may, u/s 254(1), pass such orders as it thinks fit, nonetheless, the decision must be in respect of the subject matter of the dispute.
Divine Infracon Pvt Ltd Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29478 (SC)
-
When Revenue did not made any additions u/s 69A, CIT(A) was justified in considering the same source of income at appellate stage and was justified in making enhancement.
Shri Praveen Garg Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29477 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Sale of impugned property gave rise to LTCG and not STCG. Therefore revenue is directed to examine eligibility for deduction u/s 54.
Sri. Mahendrasingh Ramsingh Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29476 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Commission was calculated as per provisions of Companies Act, 2013 , approved by AGM of the company, and paid to highly successful individuals.
Force Motors Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29475 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
There is a difference between conditions laid out for registration u/s 12AA and prerequisites for claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab).
IMC of ITI Dadri Vs ITO (Exemption)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29474 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 10(23C)(iiiab)
-
Reimbursement cannot be treated as revenue receipts.
ASG Overseas Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29473 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 153A
-
There would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). Mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee.
IKEA Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29472 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
CENVAT credit written off due to merger of manufacturing unit with another company was allowable as a deduction, since the benefit of CENVAT credit not availed of against the excise duty payable cannot be utilised by the assessee.
Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29471 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Non-seeking of permission for conversion of limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny in terms of para 4 of the CBDT instruction No. 7/2014, does not per se render the assessment order, erroneous.
Binod Kumar Mahato Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29470 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 263
-
CIT(A) ought to have confronted the assessee with the procedural shortcomings noticed prior to passing the order.
Gurdeep Singh Mangat Vs The ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29469 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
-
Until and unless it is determined that the unaccounted transactions unearthed during search were liable for payment of tax, penalty or interest, no prosecution could be launched on the ground of attempt to evade such tax, penalty or interest.
D K Shivakumar Vs ASSISTANT/DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29468 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
Recourse to Sec 144 is not applicable in the present case since books of accounts though maintained by the assessee but not produced, thus, all expenses claimed by the assessee should be added back as income.
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd Vs DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29467 (SC)
-
Any order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of the period only if the delay in disposing of the appeal is attributable to the assessee.
Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Now Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.) Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29466 (SC)
-
The extent of expenditure on advertising does not decide as to whether the expenditure incurred is of a revenue nature or of a capital nature nothing on record to show that a capital asset was created.
Miele India Pvt. Ltd Vs THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29465 (HC-DELHI)
-
RBI Circulars, or even a CBDT Circular issued in general, could not be relied on for deciding whether an asset is a trading asset or an investment asset.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29464 (SC)
-
Revenue called for specific information, referred the case to TPO and since TPO did not make any adjustment to the value of transaction, the same was accepted by AO.
Ruchi J Oil Pvt. Ltd Vs PCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29463 (ITAT-INDORE) · Section 56(2)(viib)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.